Super Rugby News
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer I find it hard to equate 3 weeks for repeatedly punching the head of a player pinned to the ground with Telea's four weeks for what was basically an accident of timing.
Clearly Tele'a should've started wailing on the Stormers winger to mitigate tackling him in the air.
@antipodean said in Super Rugby News:
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer I find it hard to equate 3 weeks for repeatedly punching the head of a player pinned to the ground with Telea's four weeks for what was basically an accident of timing.
Clearly Tele'a should've started wailing on the Stormers winger to mitigate tackling him in the air.
He's young, he'll know better for next time.
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks due to the World Rugby instructions that dictate any incident of foul play involving contact with the head must start at a mid-range level.
Is that just poor wording or does that indicate that the FPRC wanted to start lower but had their hand forced?
Crazy that punching repeatedly and deliberately is 'mid-range'. I would have thought that low range is a little strike during one of those jersey grapples, mid range is a reaction while breaking away like a reckless swing that connects. Deliberately smacking someone shows intent and disregard of laws.
-
Rugby!!!!!
Love this game!
-
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
-
-
@Stargazer I find it hard to equate 3 weeks for repeatedly punching the head of a player pinned to the ground with Telea's four weeks for what was basically an accident of timing.
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer I find it hard to equate 3 weeks for repeatedly punching the head of a player pinned to the ground with Telea's four weeks for what was basically an accident of timing.
They're completely different offences. Tele'a's is one of dangerous play, a punch is one of foul play.
I disagree it's just an accident of timing. Tele'a didn't take responsibility for how the player landed, which he should have done as soon as he realised he was causing a collision.
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer I find it hard to equate 3 weeks for repeatedly punching the head of a player pinned to the ground with Telea's four weeks for what was basically an accident of timing.
They're completely different offences. Tele'a's is one of dangerous play, a punch is one of foul play.
I disagree it's just an accident of timing. Tele'a didn't take responsibility for how the player landed, which he should have done as soon as he realised he was causing a collision.
@Stargazer so do you think Telea is deserving of a high punishment than van der merwe?
Agree that they are completely different, but both still carry a very high risk of injury (permanent) one was a very deliberate act of violence, the other was a clumsy reckless act.
Lets not forget the Frenchman had his RC overturned for what was a very similar act and result...
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks due to the World Rugby instructions that dictate any incident of foul play involving contact with the head must start at a mid-range level.
Is that just poor wording or does that indicate that the FPRC wanted to start lower but had their hand forced?
Crazy that punching repeatedly and deliberately is 'mid-range'. I would have thought that low range is a little strike during one of those jersey grapples, mid range is a reaction while breaking away like a reckless swing that connects. Deliberately smacking someone shows intent and disregard of laws.
@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks due to the World Rugby instructions that dictate any incident of foul play involving contact with the head must start at a mid-range level.
Is that just poor wording or does that indicate that the FPRC wanted to start lower but had their hand forced?
Crazy that punching repeatedly and deliberately is 'mid-range'. I would have thought that low range is a little strike during one of those jersey grapples, mid range is a reaction while breaking away like a reckless swing that connects. Deliberately smacking someone shows intent and disregard of laws.
Punching can be low-end, mid-range and top-end, just like any other offence. No doubt it will depend on the force of the punches thrown, where they connect etc, what range they'll deemed to be. Contact with the head always starts mid-range, never low-range. What the wording suggests to me is that, while the punches connected with the head, there wasn't much in it otherwise. Looking at the footage, there wasn't much force behind them, which was also clear from how easily the players stood up and walked away. Not much impact.
A little strike (with an open hand) during jersey grapples usually doesn't lead to a red card/citing, even if it connects with the head. If you close your hand in a jersey grapple, it's a deliberate punch, whether it's a reaction or not.
-
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
There is no inconsistency at all. The offences are described in the regulations, which provide for clear guidelines on the low-end, mid-range and high-end sanctions. The regulations also clearly provide for aggravating and mitigating factors that are available and how they affect the sanctions. The regulations were applied consistently as well.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the regulations, but not the judiciairy.
Also don't forget that the FPRC have access to a lot more video angles than we have, as well as other evidence.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
There is no inconsistency at all. The offences are described in the regulations, which provide for clear guidelines on the low-end, mid-range and high-end sanctions. The regulations also clearly provide for aggravating and mitigating factors that are available and how they affect the sanctions. The regulations were applied consistently as well.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the regulations, but not the judiciairy.
Also don't forget that the FPRC have access to a lot more video angles than we have, as well as other evidence.
@Stargazer
The issue for me is intent versus the result.
It shouldn’t be about the result but about the action/intent.
In Tele’a case it was not malicious in nature or even overtly reckless. Leyds lands on his feet Tele’a would’ve got a yellow card and nothing more.
Van De Merwe on the other hand is clearly intending to land some hurt on the other guy. If he breaks the other guys face he would have got stung but because he ‘missed’ he gets a lesser penalty. -
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
There is no inconsistency at all. The offences are described in the regulations, which provide for clear guidelines on the low-end, mid-range and high-end sanctions. The regulations also clearly provide for aggravating and mitigating factors that are available and how they affect the sanctions. The regulations were applied consistently as well.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the regulations, but not the judiciairy.
Also don't forget that the FPRC have access to a lot more video angles than we have, as well as other evidence.
@Stargazer it's great that you are so trusting in the systems and processes, seeing it all as consistent and fair.
-
@Stargazer it's great that you are so trusting in the systems and processes, seeing it all as consistent and fair.
@taniwharugby Nothing to do with trust. I read every decision and they are consistent. I never said it's fair, but if there's unfairness, it's not due to inconsistency of the judiciary or following the prescribed process.
I also don't agree with statements from some ferners that they should punish intent instead of result. Then you would get crazy decisions where someone, who tries to punch someone, but only lightly connects with someones hair or ear, would get a high-end sanction, while someone being reckless causes someone to land on their head only getting off with a warning.
That would take away the whole purpose of the rugby laws that aim at preventing serious injury due to dangerous play.
-
Watched my first rugby of the season on Sunday, watched Rugby Nation.
Saffa teams in gimmick super hero kit.
This comp is mickey mouse. I'd have more respect for the saffas if they tried to raise the extra money by match fixing .... at least they'd look like grown ups.
I fucking hate superhero movies.
So, now both movies and rugby are shit. Great.
Do any kids still start following their sport because their dads do? Does it have to be aimed at the kids?
(still better kits that the NZ fucking duckshooting ones though ......) How can anyone develop any pride in playing and supporting these tribeless non-entities.
Fuck rugby. Fuck youths. Fuck you all.
Utter juvenile horseshit. -
@Stargazer
The issue for me is intent versus the result.
It shouldn’t be about the result but about the action/intent.
In Tele’a case it was not malicious in nature or even overtly reckless. Leyds lands on his feet Tele’a would’ve got a yellow card and nothing more.
Van De Merwe on the other hand is clearly intending to land some hurt on the other guy. If he breaks the other guys face he would have got stung but because he ‘missed’ he gets a lesser penalty.@Nogusta said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer
The issue for me is intent versus the result.
It shouldn’t be about the result but about the action/intent.
In Tele’a case it was not malicious in nature or even overtly reckless. Leyds lands on his feet Tele’a would’ve got a yellow card and nothing more.
Van De Merwe on the other hand is clearly intending to land some hurt on the other guy. If he breaks the other guys face he would have got stung but because he ‘missed’ he gets a lesser penalty.The other point is Tele'a was trying to play rugby and Van De Merwe was assaulting someone.
-
@taniwharugby Nothing to do with trust. I read every decision and they are consistent. I never said it's fair, but if there's unfairness, it's not due to inconsistency of the judiciary or following the prescribed process.
I also don't agree with statements from some ferners that they should punish intent instead of result. Then you would get crazy decisions where someone, who tries to punch someone, but only lightly connects with someones hair or ear, would get a high-end sanction, while someone being reckless causes someone to land on their head only getting off with a warning.
That would take away the whole purpose of the rugby laws that aim at preventing serious injury due to dangerous play.
@Stargazer
Based on the below, argument could be made for a yellow card. Lleyds braced with his left arm and fell on his back? Definitely not a deliberate foul play action and debatable whether or not it was reckless. Protecting his face from a couple of size 12 boots coming his way! Oh well tough learning curve for Tele'a!Law 9.17 (Dangerous Play - A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground) with the following guidelines:
Play on - Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only - Fair challenge with wrong timing - no pulling down
Yellow card - Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card - It's not a fair challenge, with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position -
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Hooroo thst is the great aspect
But the piss poor and inconsistent judiciary is a joke.
I'd have expected van der merwe to get min of 8 weeks for his part.
8 weeks? for 3 or 4 shit punches? He's on top of him punching down and didn't even land something to make a mark. And the other bloke starts it, but loses when he gets shoved over. Both a couple of dumb fluffybunnies thinking you can still do that in the pro game. I wouldn't have suspended either of them. Deliberate, low impact, time served is enough.
-
@Stargazer so do you think Telea is deserving of a high punishment than van der merwe?
Agree that they are completely different, but both still carry a very high risk of injury (permanent) one was a very deliberate act of violence, the other was a clumsy reckless act.
Lets not forget the Frenchman had his RC overturned for what was a very similar act and result...
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer so do you think Telea is deserving of a high punishment than van der merwe?
Agree that they are completely different, but both still carry a very high risk of injury (permanent) one was a very deliberate act of violence, the other was a clumsy reckless act.
Lets not forget the Frenchman had his RC overturned for what was a very similar act and result...
IMO it was worse.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer so do you think Telea is deserving of a high punishment than van der merwe?
Agree that they are completely different, but both still carry a very high risk of injury (permanent) one was a very deliberate act of violence, the other was a clumsy reckless act.
Lets not forget the Frenchman had his RC overturned for what was a very similar act and result...
IMO it was worse.
@booboo Yup, and we also know why World Rugby threw Gardner under the bus. Because Cane and Tu'ungafasi weren't carded/cited for that double tackle on Grosso (resulting in that horror injury) a week earlier and the whole NH hemisphere got a hissy fit.
